By Tonnie Iredia
Many scholars are agreed that in running large entities, be they companies or even countries, there is wisdom in embracing decentralization whereby decision-making powers are distributed across various levels.
It stands to reason therefore that a large heterogeneous political entity such as Nigeria which is almost 4 times the size of the United Kingdom ought to consciously avoid centralization. Unfortunately, some Nigerian leaders still cherish the unitary system of government which the military under the guise of national unity foisted on the country many years ago. In reality however, an exceedingly powerful federal centre can only create strong men and not effective institutions.
One of the advantages of decentralization is that it encourages component parts of a large entity to focus on innovation and growth while eyeing peer review mechanism for healthy competition. Nigeria does not need to search too far to find examples of how autonomy facilitated the growth and development of the nation’s regions during the first republic.
The legendary Obafemi Awolowo introduced television broadcasting in the Western Region in 1959 – a glamour that the Eastern and Northern Regions followed a year later. It was probably the feeling of being left behind that propelled the federal government to do same in 1961. Perhaps a better example lies in Awolowo’s introduction of free education which pushed his region’s growth far above others. Indeed, those who didn’t follow Awolowo’s example are probably still regretting now.
History clearly tells us that except for now when the embezzlement of local resources is in vogue, it is easier for a local authority to solve its immediate problem because of its relatedness to the environment. This is because when a problem is geographically located, the local official is ethnically embedded in it.
Thus, we can imagine that one of the reasons why insecurity evolved, grew and has been spreading in parts of Nigeria is because the relevant authorities were and are still distant from it. The hypothesis is that whereas immediate local officials have no option but to solve a problem before it consumes themselves, central and distant officials have enough room to engage in definitions as well as counter definitions and debates culminating in unending fake assurances for the future.
As soon as traces of insecurity that had become disguised as herder-farmer conflicts were getting to the South-West, the governors in the region came together to nip it in the bud by quickly forming the popular Western Nigeria Security Network (Amotekun) in 2020. If really the issue was herder-farmer conflict, the people knew the local methods and rules put in place to ensure law and order.
But rather than supporting the region to stop the problem, the federal government went into definitions of constitutional authority over security educating the governors on what they could not do without a word on what they could do. So, the debates triumphed as a good example of the evils of centralization when all that the strong centre was good at doing was playing the ostrich.
The most invidious problem in Nigeria today is insecurity but it is not the priority of the political class even though it is their primary assignment as the constitution directs. It is a problem which should not be left to years of debates as to the desirability of state police. It is true that before the military intervened in Nigeria’s political system in the 1960s, there was ample evidence that our governors misused the concept of state police. There is also no evidence that if restored the abuse would not immediately return.
Only last week, Senator Sani Hanga representing Kano Central Senatorial District was apt when he said that ‘state police would be used by governors to intimidate political opponents and silence dissenting voices.’ We can also not completely counter his argument that state police would have pushed the recent Emirship tussle in Kano into civil war.
Unfortunately, Hanga’s views on state police which are widely held cannot explain why the federal government should police any state in a federal system of government. Indeed, the Kano Emirship tussle which the senator cited is a good example of bad centralization. If according to law, the subject concerned chieftaincy title and installation, which fall within the jurisdiction of a state, why did it become a matter for the federal police?
It is therefore time for us all to recognize the unavoidable truth that politicians whether at state or federal level would always abuse their offices. Federal officials would even go beyond just the federal police to add the military in matters that purely concern internal security. Interestingly, each time people correctly attack governors on such matters, the mistake that is often made is that such abuse is restricted to state level matters where we have governors.
The trend has turned Nigeria into a funny federal system where state matters are gas-lighted by federal officials. Now and again, there are calls from many Nigerians that our poorly managed Independent National Electoral Commission INEC should be mandated to conduct local government elections. Whereas the excesses of state electoral officials can easily make many support the call, there is no substance in the call.
This is because, both federal and state electoral officials have since become notorious for aiding electoral malpractices while making it impossible for Nigerian elections to be free and credible. What is more, if federal officials are to execute local functions what then will be the job of local officials? In addition, why can’t Nigerians be allowed to do what their counterparts do world-wide? Put differently, when will our local officials grow up?
The way forward is to allow officials to perfect the act of excellent performance of their duties under the watchful eyes of a civic society that is given a vibrant voice. Painfully, the nation’s political office holders and the law enforcement agencies have left no room for the people to criticize or protest what they detest. Earlier, the police relied on the Public Order Act of 1979 to clamp down on political opposition and dissenting opinions.
At the time, protesters were required to obtain protest permits before ventilating their dissatisfaction through public protests. Although the courts had shut that order down decades ago, the public place has continued to shrink to a level of fear and despair. In today’s Nigeria, public protests are virtually no longer allowed. The permits that are given for protests are now done by the judiciary which has been teleguided to poetically reduce the subject to a game in a stadium.
For Nigeria to progressively develop, she must function as a democracy which she claims to be and not a caricature. In a democracy, the most important element is the people who must be recognized as sovereign and who can therefore not be the same persons that are intimidated. As for our pervasive insecurity which the law enforcement agents are set up to handle, our fear should no longer be what governors might do with state police if established. Instead, let us do what is done elsewhere. Let us prepare to have state police which our president says he is not against and take steps to ensure that it works for the people and not against them. Before then, let us all come together against insecurity so that we can have peace which makes development possible.
But because mass mobilization recognizes the difficulty in uniting persons who are driven by mutual suspicion and distrust, some of the questions in the public domain ought to be answered. First, who withdrew the security forces that were attached to the Kebbi school that was invaded minutes after the controversial withdrawal?
Second, a former spokesperson of the police told the nation some years back that over 200 police operatives are deployed to each governor of the federation. Now that emphasis is on protecting communities, how many of such operatives have been redeployed so that the entire nation can have a feel of security protection? Again, how many operatives are deployed to the president and other entitled political office holders?
The point to be made is that whereas unentitled officers should lose the operatives deployed to them, those who are entitled should at this point have their entitlement cut down to meet the nation’s current exigencies. Another group that may be hard to categorize is made up of those who are described as ‘exposed.’
If members of the legislature are part of this, it would be good to know what exposes any of such officials. If a person can be exposed only because he is a law-maker, people will begin to determine the choices they make before elections just as the public will know their leaders better. Once these issues are well known it won’t be hard to accept that our insecurity is indeed political.
*Dr Iredia is a commentator on public issues
No comments:
Post a Comment